Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 10: Part II


By Rick Jacobs

Chis Desseaux (CD): Shows email from Prentice saying that what homos do in privacy of

Never in CA history qualified without paid signature gathering. This is where Bishop Cordiloeon and the S Catholic Community offered tremendous help. The bishop sought the help of NOM and Maggie G, herself a Catholic and ED Brian Brown. They helped with writing and to get in front of hundreds of donors. And got Knights of Columbus. Raised over $900,000…

CD: Email from Gallagher to Brian Brown and also to Schubert with CC to Mr. Prentice.

This sentence appears to be written by Brown to Gallagher, shared with Schubert and Prentice. You see at bottom of email Hollywood Stars, ACLU Pour Money into Anti-Marriage Efforts in CA.”

“We’re going to need to get approval from SF on this. Text of the agreement requires anything specific to California to get approval.”

Moss (M): Hearsay.

CD: Should be state of mind. But also if Mr. Brown thinks he has to run messages by Mr. Schubert, very important.

M: No way to place into context.

CD: Shows state of mind.

Judge Walker: Admissible. Question is weight to give it and what does it mean. May be one of reasons that Proponents wish to call Mr. Schubert.

CD: Another document from Prentice.

M: What is relevance.

CD: Talks about having strongest grassroots response in history of CA initiatives and who is involved.

Evangelicals—400,000 signatures; 3,00 pastors
Orthodox Jews

The Arlington Group 60+ organizational networks; special offerings nationally
CD: Document from Mr. Swartzman who attempted to keep his name secret. Got this from his file after he was compelled. Want to move into evidence an email from Arlington Group to Prentice.

M: Hearsay.
Judge Walker: Admitted.

CD: Shows that someone from Arlington Group talking about what they are doing. Organizing heavy hitters … Newt on board. Meese pleas to legal community, Levin plea to country, Dobson Christian community, House Whip Blunt, Rep. Pense, Senator Burr for plea to elected officials, Mike Judge/ Colin Hart UK) warning of what will happen if apathy sets in and what UK now faces), Pastor Garlow (plea to ALL pastors)

M: Object.

J: To Prentice and reflects his state of mind. It’s in.

CD: Another, not sure why they object.

M: We don’t. Error if it was on our list.

[UPDATE] 10:36

CD: American Anthropological Association shows no doubt that protected status is due to homosexuals based on APA view of race.

M: Judicial notice okay.

Judge Walker: Very well.

CD: Puts on screen: In the US both scholars and general public have been conditioned to view race as natural and separate divisions within the human species base on visible distinctions… has become clear not differentiated …

We now understand that human behavior is learned from birth. No human is born with a built in cultural or language: our temperaments, dispositions and personalities.. are learned (with genetic influence?)

How people have been accepted or treated within context of society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The racial worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low class status. Created by Euros to keep AA, Indians others low. … Products of society’s treatment of them.

[He’s showing that race has evoked stigma, but just because someone is of a certain race, it does not mean that they will act a certain way or are lower. Same as for homos, which is basis of much of case.]

CD: Communication to Pride Foundation in which US Treasury denies tax-exempt status (1974). Admissible under ancient documents exception. Shows that historical bias against homos.

Judge Walker: You are calling this an ancient document?

CD: Don’t shoot the messenger. Statute is 20 years.

M: Object. Can’t prove this was in Library of Congress.

Judge Walker: Would Library of Congress have a document such as this?

CD: We can show that this document can be obtained from Library of Congress. Perhaps we can admit it into evidence subject to verification.

Judge Walker: I will accept based on your representation. Court accepts lawyer’s reps and holds lawyers accountable. Based on that, it is admitted.

CD: Based on the foregoing, we feel that you’re advancing the unqualified and unrestricted promotion of the alleged normalcy of homosexuality. Thus, we concluded that your activities carry a serious risk of contributing tot a more widespread development of homo tendencies…contrary to public policy. Not charitable. Not accepted.

CD: Add another document from 1966 that shows US Civil Service Commission letter about government policy about homos.

J: Do you wish to point the court to what is significant here?

CD: Types of deviant sexual behavior, whether persistent, …recency of incidence… what I think is particularly noteworthy here, is that it denies employment by government of homos not as person or individual, but based on conduct.

CD: Government statistics that back up Badgett from Holland.

J: In.

Morning break until 1055.

[UPDATE] 12:06 Sorry for the delay everyone. Rather long update below.

CD: We got note for 7,500 documents to be in privilege log. Docs were described for the first time last night. We may need to reopen based on additional production.

Judge Walker: I assume that defense will not object to right to reopen?

Moss (M): No objection provided we have the right to respond.

CD: I turn this over to Mr. Boies (B).

B: Purely ceremonial, your honor. Subject to the prior statements, the defendants rest.

Judge Walker: Mr. Thompson?

Thompson (T): The defendants call Prof. Kenneth Miller (M).

T: Housekeeping. List of documents to move into evidence to which to plaintiffs have agreed?

Judge Walker: With no objection, so ordered.

T: (Has three big binders.)

Prof Miller (M): Pomona and then Harvard. Practiced at Morrison & Foerster for five years. Two years in litigation office in LA and then three years to open Sacramento office. Then did contract work for firm. In Sacto, did regulatory work representing SF Airport, other clients who had matters before government. PhD in poli sci 2002 at UC Berkeley. Associ. Prof of government at Claremont McKenna. Tenured. Six years before that, asso. Prof. for one year, was visiting assoc. prof. at UC SF.

Research and teach. At Rose Institute of State and Local Government. Studies state and local politics mainly in CA but also in other states. Redistricting, fiscal policy and the like. Teach intro to AM Politics. Every year, teach a class in CA politics. Every year teach senior seminar and usually teach course in Constitutional law.

CA politics, cover range of topics from founding of state in 1850 to introduction of referendum and recall 100 years ago and then Pat Brown and the professionalization of the state legislature and then to term limited legislature with powerful initiative system, change of ethnic and racial minorities and shift from 50-50 R and D to majority D.

Large section on Prop. 8 and legal recognition of same sex couples, original dp law 1999 and how it was augmented, fight with judiciary over definition of marriage. Also address gays and lesbians in politics, as well as coalitions that affect two parties, particularly role of gays and lesbians as key part of Dems coalition. Also cover other minorities in politics. Have students read literature on that.
American politics class, I teach issue of racism in US prior to founding of constitution, Dred Scott, civil war, Lincoln, post-civil war laws, civil rights all the way to Obama. Shows degree to which one group is discriminated against and got civil rights. Assign simple justice by Kruger. Book includes history of discrimination up to and beyond Brown v. Board.

Discuss gay and lesbians as increasingly important part of coalition in US.

Main focus of scholarly research starting at Berkeley has been and is direct democracy and initiative process. Applied Madisonian critique and disadvantages that direct democracy has vs. representative democracy. Filed dissertation in 2001, published in 2002.

Continued to study direct democracy. It’s my continuing research. Now have a database that has info on all voter-approved initiatives in all 24 states that allow from 1900 when it started. Research goes back to progressive era.

I’ve modified my views since I was a grad student. I now see it as a way for people to exercise popular sovereignty and how it conflicts with courts.

Judge Walker: Shouldn’t you tender the witness before we get into this?

T: Yes, your honor.

M: Book published by Cambridge Press last year. Also book that looks at CA from geo to political divide. Moved from north-south divide to east-west with coasts more democratic and inland more conservative, but state has become more democratic. Published by Berkeley in 2008.

Recent journal article I wrote for French journal on politics focused on why Prop. 8 was unable to pass to even in a state that elected Barack Obama.

J: Do you mean did pass?

M: Yes, I’m sorry your honor.

M: Power of gays and lesbians. Presented twice at American Assoc of Political Scientists in 2005. Presented on Goodrich decision and probable impact. Also presented on relationship of courts and direct democracy regarding ss marriage.

M: On editorial board of something at UC Berkeley.

T: Tender witness as expert on CA politics and American politics.

B: Although I think I would not dispute that expert in some aspects in that broad field, concerned he may be asked to opine on political power of gays and lesbians which is beyond his expertise. Court to proffer his expertise. If it’s within his scope, okay. If not, we’d like to voir dire.

T: Certainly expert in gays and lesbians.

Judge Walker: Would you like to voir dire?

B: Good afternoon….

J: Still morning.

B: Have you written any peer reviewed articles on the power of gays and lesbians?

M: Depends upon your definition?

B: Of what?

M: Of power of gays and lesbians. I’ve written that French article.

B: Other than that French article as you referred to it, have you written any other peer reviewed articles about power of g and l?

M: No.

B: You wrote about political power of gays and lesbians.

M: Yes.

B: You showed that gays and lesbians do not have political power?

M: No. They ran a good campaign against Prop. 8.

B: Other than the fact that gays and lesbians campaigned against Prop. 8 and lost, did you conclude otherwise about power of gays and lesbians?

M: Well, I showed that they got support of Obama and their coalition.

B: Other than this article, have you done any scientific research on the pol power of gays and lesbians?

M: I wrote on Prop. 22. Showed that gays and lesbians have power. Central issue of case.

B: Anything else?

M: In my book, which was, peer reviewed.

B: Do you show anything else about political power of gays and lesbians?

M: Yes, I conclude that through outcome of ballot measures I see that gays and lesbians have politcal power.

B: Are you an expert on whether gays and lesbians experience discrimination today?

M: Yes.

B: Are you an expert on whether gays and lesbians in last 50 years?

M: I have written on it before and in course of reviewing for this case I think I could write an article on this now. Not 50 years ago.

B: What would you say are the most important academic articles on discrimination of gay and l today?

M: My work on legal. Prof. Estrich, Susan Lezzy and one other.

B: You’d recognize them as important scholars on whose work you would rely?

M: Yes.

M: I’m not holding myself out as an expert of the full history of the gay and lesbian rights movement. Know trajectory. Deeper knowledge on 1970s forward.

B: At your depo not aware of what Mattachine Society was.

M: Yes, I did some research and found out that it was founded by Harry Hay in 1950.

B: Role in 1970s period in which you say an expert.

M: Yes.

B: But you did not know about them when you wrote your report?

M: Yes.

B: In depo you were not aware of general social survey?

M: No, but no know.

B: You did not know who Alan Speer or Elaine Goldman were and that they were elected as first openly gay in 1976 and 9175 respectively?

M: No. I did not know and do not. Know some were elected in1970s.

B: We object to his testimony as expert out of area of initiatives. He does not even know the key facts.

J: Seems to me that his knowledge of American politics is undisputed. Important to keep him in his testimony of pol power of g and l. I don’t understand that defendant are offering him history of discrimination. I’ll admit that testimony as it is brought out (with respect to minority groups in CA and American politics.)

[Boies made him very, very nervous, FYI. Kind of fun.]

T: What are key determinants of pol power?

Money, access to lawmakers, ability to persuade and two others.

M: Money is very important asset in the Am political. Just look at Citizens United case and strong reaction to both sides very important. Money allows people to be heard?

M: Striking to me the amount of money that was raised on both sides of election of Prop. 8. $43 mm by opponents, which exceeded very large expenditures by yes on 8 (which he shows as $40 mm).

T: How many groups have raised more than $43 mm?

M: Exceptionally rare. A few that have raised this or more, such as regulatory or Indian gaming. For social issue, this is exceptional.

M: Having access to lawmakers is important for any minority group, in part because time for lawmakers is scarce resource. Gaining access to scarce resource demonstrates power. Also, getting access to legislature raises visibility of issue. Access gives ability to persuade lawmaker. Lawmakers have incredible political connection. Having access to lawmakers helps build coalition. If g and l have particular leg agenda and lawmaker sympathetic, can set up meetings with unions and others.

T: How does size and cohesion affect pol power?

M: If a group has larger numbers, helps gets votes. If you have large numbers, helps get to majority for one side or the other. If not cohesive, harder to help win elections. If you are smaller group, need coalition. Madison says everyone has to form coalitions, but minority groups particularly need to.

M: Based on my analysis of recent history and the way things work, Dem party in last ten years in CA and national. Elected officials from Congress and WH to local and state. Labor. Struck by extent to which org labor has coalesced especially around ss relationships. Corporations. Major corps are increasingly allied with lgbt rights movement. Newspapers is fifth ally. I’ve done a systematic investigation of CA newspapers and NYT all allied for ss marriage. Celebrities can garner attention and provide positive images. Religious and faith-based are well organized and can get people to help on campaigns. Professional associations of physicians, doctors and others.

T: Let’s look at each. How powerful is the Dem Party in CA today?

M: Part of my work on that book the New Political Geography of CA. State moved from 50-50 in 1980 where R and D comparable politically. Changed in last generation to where D is dominant. Feb. 2009 D 45.5% registered voters, whereas R 31.1%. Significant gap.

Elected officials in state 49-29 D/R with one Ind and one open seat. Very large gap.

Senate 25 and 15 D and R.

Dems do not quite have 2/3, but can pass anything except budget.

Of 8 state offices, all but one held by D and Lt. Gov open and Gov.

34/53 house members are dem and both us senators are dem for many years now.

In last pres election, Obama won 60.95% in statewide pop vote. Largest by any since 1936 when FDR won in landslide.

This is a blue state.

Goes through CA Dem Party platform and resolutions, which call for ss marriage and repeal of Prop. 8 within two years if not by courts.
Gov is ally. Against Prop. 8, DOMA, and would not defend against this case.

T: Who controls access to Gov?

M: Susan Kennedy is the Chief of Staff who is open lesbian and supports gay and lesbian rights.

M: John Garamendi, very pro.

M: AG Brown, former gov and strong contender for future gov, strong supporters. EQCA has recognized that AG is ally. Director of EQCA “Greg” Kors expresses appreciation to Brown and won’t endorse any candidate who does not support ss marriage.

M: Sec State Bowen ally. 2007 letter she wrote letter recognizing LGBT pride month. Stand with you and always have.

M: Treasurer Bill Lockyear, former two term state legislator, opposed Prop. 8, gave money to no on 8. “Greg” Kors scored 100% on our questionnaire and will be good Treasurer, says EQCA.

M: Controller Chiang has, according to NGLTF, been strong supporter…

B: Object…

T: We are doing what they did with Badgett. If necessary, we can go to binders. We are making excellent progress.

J: I would not want to interfere with your progress. You may proceed.

M: Jack O’Connell, supt of public instruction, appeared in ads against Prop. 8.

M: Legislature very supportive of LGBT rights. Have been 8 elected members of legislature, currently four.

M: Gavin Newsom nationally known advocate of GL rights. A Villaraigosa opposed Pro. 8 and gave $25,000 contribution. And Sanders of S-D we saw last week.

[UPDATE] 12:19

M: Lots of local jurisdictions support.

M: Amazing how supportive labor is. CTA, one of most powerful unions in state, SEIU, Farm workers, AF-CIO all very supportive.

M: CTA with 340,000 members, one of most powerful forces in CA politics. Union donated $1.3 mm and filed Amicus Brief. CA State Council of SEIU donated $500,000, supported in legislature and Amicus Brief.

M: Of 23 largest circulation newspapers 21 supported No on 8. One took no position at all. Not one took yes position. OC Register, not known as liberal, came out against Prop. 8.

M: Another striking development over past decade or more, major corporations have internally in their employment practices and in their policy decisions, have become increasingly supportive of LGBT. HRC reviewed 590 corporations 2010. 305 achieved100% rating on this organization’s survey. 99% provide non-discrimination based on sexual orientation. Report found that major employers stepped forward to provide steadfast support for marriage equality, particularly I CA.

M: Google, largest internet company in world and usually does not take positions on controversial issues. Sergei Brin put up opposition on blog. Yahoo, SISCO, E-Bay, the who’s who of Silicon Valley, got together and issued a full-page ad in SJ Merc News opposing Prop. 8.

T: To what extent did words of corporate leaders translate into actions?

M: Money. List of major corporate contributors to EQCA: ATT, Clear Channel, Kaiser Permanente, — made contributions of from $5,000-$250,000 each.

M: Entertainment industry generally has supported the LGBT rights movement. As an industry, in my view, has been supportive. Some corporations and individuals made major contributions to no on 8 and/or otherwise support ss marriage. Geffen, Spielberg, Kate Capshaw, Brad Pitt including Mr. Reiner have supported ss marriage.

Judge Walker: Break until ten minutes after hour.

T: Next to each pink, we have listed each page and line number to which we counter.

Boutrous: No objection.

J: Ten minutes after 1.

(adjourn at 1215)

[NOTE] There is a new thread for the afternoon session.

Tags: , , , , ,


  • 1. Rob Tisinai  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:22 am

    At the risk of shameless self-promotion, I just finished a youtube debunking the whole gays-are-child-molesters crap that William Tam was spreading. I hope no one minds if I post the link.

  • 2. Caleb  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Nice job!

  • 3. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Great points Rob, ought to be repeated loudly and often!

  • 4. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Thank you Rob, for setting the record correct!

  • 5. Marko Markov  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Fantastic video, Rob! Thank you so much!!! I will post it on my Facebook!


  • 6. Alan E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Very well spoken and put together.

  • 7. Alec  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Thank you for the video!!

  • 8. Ozymandias  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Rob, I continue to enjoy your videos and find them very insightful! Thanks for putting this together – especially since I'm starting to see this argument used more and more in SSM debates – I think these people are just counting on the readers being wow'd by 'Oooh we have statistics now!' instead of actually fact-checking them!

  • 9. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Thanks for posting this video Rob I am sending it to everybody I know…..if you don't mind me doing so.

  • 10. Sharp-Blond  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:43 am

    Outstanding video. Well researched, and very enlightening uncovering the falsehoods that are often repeated about gay men. Even I learned some new things watching it.

  • 11. homogenius  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:47 am

    This cuts to the heart of the problem. I've said something similar for years.

    For instance, looking at the Boy Scouts. They do exactly what the video says–they exclude openly gay parents from leadership positions when it is closeted men they have to worry about most.

    There's another issue here, as well. These anti-gay zealots claim to care so much for children, but in reality children are just a prop for them to use in furthering their agenda. They're willing to put children at risk to keep their cash cow bringing in the bucks. Children are pawns in their little gay-hating industry.

    The video left out the scriptures that inveigh against "bearing false witness". That's the other one I like to use.

    The fundies love to claim they "love the sinner, but hate the sin". I grew up in church. I know that you can't claim to love someone while you are telling lies about them.

  • 12. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Heh. Boy, do they get mad when you point out (accurately) that "love the sinner, hate the sin" appears nowhere in the Bible but was, in fact, a quote from the most definitely NOT Christian Mohandas K. Ghandi …

  • 13. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Dunno what I'm gonna do about Boy Scouts… I was a Boy Scout and it was a great experience, and both my wife and I agree that it is the kind of thing we want for our son — but I cannot in good conscience support an organization that openly discriminates against homosexuals and atheists (and even agnostics! WTF!). In fact, if I were to tell BSA the truth, they wouldn't even allow my son in because he has atheists for parents.

    I know there are secular non-discriminating alternatives, but I have not found any chapters anywhere near where I live (and my understanding is that at least some of the alternatives are, eh, not as good, whether due to lack of funding or lack of organization or what).

    Luckily, we've got many years before I have to worry about that. And maybe the situation will change by then… who knows… :/

  • 14. Ozymandias  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:58 am

    "The fundies love to claim they “love the sinner, but hate the sin”. I grew up in church. I know that you can’t claim to love someone while you are telling lies about them."

    Absolutely right, homogenius. I just scratch my head when I see someone say 'I don't hate homosexuals" but then turn around and rabidly throw out mis-quoted 'facts' (which are, IMO, just copied and pasted or repeated by rote with no real thought behind their accuracy), or they'll quote Leviticus 18:22 and/or Leviticus 20:13. I always ask 'So you're saying that you don't hate homosexuals, but nonetheless agree with scripture that says we should be put to death?'

  • 15. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:03 am

    @Ozy and others … I will look for a brilliant exegesis I have on file concerning Leviticus and post it here. It's long, but worth reading.

  • 16. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:13 am

    I happen to LOVE Christians.

    I just hate their sins.

    And surely God will consider the Christian sins of abuse, murder, rape, dehumanization and degradation of LGTB citizens FAR more seriously than he will consider the genitalia of another's beloved.

  • 17. Susan R Barnes  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Here's a wonderful link

  • 18. JC  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Brilliant. Thank you. And I, for one, applaud the sharing of such things. You are standing for a noble cause, so no "shameless self-promotion" here….

  • 19. M S  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:52 am

    That was beautiful, Rob. Clean and visually striking, frank and straight-forward (pun completely intended), right on. Thanks for posting.

    Are there any stats on how much/what portion of the population is a child molester or pedophile? I'm curious to know whether it's more or less than the gay population.

  • 20. jerek  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Thank you Rob for setting ME straight.

    In a rebuttal to someone's comment, I posted a statement along the lines of "If you're a man abusing boys then it seems to me that you're gay if you had the the guts to admit it to yourself, you'd be getting it on with a man."

    You offer a compelling argument that the self-ID, whether accepted or denied has no bearing whatsoever. Opinion corrected.

  • 21. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Jerek, pedophiles aren't attracted to adults. At the age they tend to prefer, the only gender dimorphism is genitalia. Gender of the victim is irrelevant; it's much more about access.

  • 22. Casey  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:03 am

    As a lesbian who works with young victims of abuse, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for making clear the real statistics of abuse. It is never okay to harm a child no matter who you are. To work toward eliminating abuse, it's vital that we understand what is really happening, instead of wasting time blaming the gay community while more children are hurt. Rob, thank you. Great video.

  • 23. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Casey, as an adult survivor of incest, I want you to know that you are one of my heroes. To know that you are reinforcing what I have long told people–that the LGBTQQ comunity has been in the forefront of PROTECTINg children–by helping children recover from the effects of being abused really makes my heart swell with pride. YOU GO, LADY! And to me you are truly a LADY, and a LADY WITH CLASS! Hope to see you in real life sometime.

  • 24. Ann S.  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Thanks, Rob, great video. I put it on my FB page.


  • 25. Rick Heintz  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Dude… Nice Job!

  • 26. Alec from SC  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:32 am

    So, went to You Tube and started watching your videos… I love them.

    Great job.

  • 27. Mykelb  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Rob, will like to FB page if possible. Thanks!!!

  • 28. Andrea  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Fantastic, important, well-done, kudos, etc.!

    Constructive criticisms:

    It would be more effective to reverse the order of presentation – first show that the danger to kids is coming from pedos hiding in the straight community, then reveal the attack on gays and logical fallacy as the "cover story" they use. Make your point first, not theirs, or else you undermine your own point by fighting against confirmation bias.

    The half-shaded "questionable" person would be better represented as a question mark. Combined with the above, confirmation bias will lead the viewer to assume that the one question mark probably belongs with all the other confirmed cases.

    Just my $0.02

  • 29. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:19 am

    This video isn't captioned and, for me, that makes it worthless. I've studied this EXACT issue for the past 20 years and would probably be able to provide good critical feedback. But I'm deaf and there's just no way I can even provide modest evaluation. I hope you will provide captioning some day. It makes me heart sick these days when so much information that directly effects my life is inaccessible to me. More and more people are simply producing videos to make their case – videos that could be captioned but aren't. Please consider this issue of accessibility when your create this kind of thing in the future. There are quite of few deaf gays and lesbian out here. We want to know what is relevent and to be informed because we don't have the assistance of the hearing community as we try to educate the deaf community about GLBT issues. We need your help.

  • 30. Rob Tisinai  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:35 am

    Hey Ray. If you check the blog where the video was posted, there's a link to a full transcript. You can find the transcript at

  • 31. Rob Tisinai  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Ray, I just used youtube's "transcript" feature to add subtitles. I had no idea it was so easy. Thanks for turning me on to it.

  • 32. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Oh My God!!!! You CAPTIONED IT!!!!! Thank you Rob!!!!

  • 33. Ann S.  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Rob, I knew you rocked, but this really ices it. Thank you.


  • 34. karen Ocamb  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Rob – excellent video – I just posted it on my blog – LGBT POV.

    Thank you, Rick for this incredible live-blogging. I just added your comments about the "incendiary" evidence on my preview post.

  • 35. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:55 am

    this is a great vid, thanks!

  • 36. Charles  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:28 am

    You're handsome AND you make good, intelligent and articulate videos. The combination of both is rare enough to bear mentioning.

  • 37. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Handsome?……He's Hot!…..whoa!…..I'm sorry, the school boy crush thing just came out in me….LOL!

  • 38. Jack  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:57 am


  • 39. Brian D  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:13 am

    As a pediatrician and child psychiatry fellow, I commend you. Your video was well put together, well spoken, fantastic use of graphics and peer-reviewed articles. I even learned a thing or two! 🙂 Keep up the good work and thanks for your hard work!

  • 40. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Rob, THANK YOU! Anoher thing that they use in order to demonize us, and I say this from my own first-hand experience as an adult survivor of incest whose perpetrator was my adoptive father, is that "well, you must have enjoyed it, or you would not have kept going back." What they fail to realize is that, especially when the child molester is the male parental figure, there has been a life of terror endured by the child so that when the incest begins, they go along with it in order to survive. I never enjoyed it, and in fact, I abhorred it, especially because I was molested for the first time by my "father" after he caught me with a friend of mine from school. I only went alog with him because of the history of terrorism from him at home, and his constantly throwing the Bible at me, via the 10 commandments and Paul's writings about honoring thy mother and thy father. And yes, I am more than willing to talk to you about this further. you can reach me on Facebook. Richard Walter in Hope Mills. I am part of the P8TT group there.

  • 41. Ed-M  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Excellent job!!! I'm copying it from your YouTube and embedding it elsewhere because THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!

  • 42. hearsay  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Someone wrote last week that the defense could just wear an "objection" sign while the judge wears an "overruled" one to save time. They should switch the signs to "hearsay" and "admitted" today.

  • 43. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Absolutely! The defense is so objectionable.

  • 44. Sean  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I thought the same thing! I seriously believe we're gonna win this case, if only because the defense continues to try Judge Walker's patience again…and again…and AGAIN…

    "M: Hearsay.
    Judge Walker: Admitted."

  • 45. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:36 am

    I just want to link to this Louis CK stand-up bit for some comic relief.
    "How do you argue against gay marriage in court? 'Well, Your Honor, they're fuckin' QUEER!' That's the whole argument, right?"

    NSFW for language, obviously.

  • 46. JC  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Thanks! Hysterical and just as logical as the Prop 8 arguments….

  • 47. Jaye  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:36 am

    I can already hear Maggie screaming "religious descrimination" and "judicial activism" based on the judge allowing all these docs into evidence.

    It's so interesting (and mind-numbing) that NOM and the other anti-SSMers are really, when it comes down to it, trying to save their ability to legally discrimate. So what do they do, yell they're being discriminated against!

  • 48. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:23 am

    As far as I can tell, that's the only "freedom" held by the pro-8 side that is being "threatened". And yet I hear, again and again, that their freedom is under attack.

    I don't think they really know what "freedom" means.

  • 49. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:37 am

    CD: Another, not sure why they object.

    M: We don’t. Error if it was on our list.

    hahaha that's funny. They were marking so many objections, they accidentally marked too many. Classic.

    Someone wrote last week that the defense could just wear an “objection” sign while the judge wears an “overruled” one to save time. They should switch the signs to “hearsay” and “admitted” today.

    The judge sustained one of them though! hehehe…

  • 50. Dave T  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:43 am

    I can hear the cackling from the other side now…

    "We got one of our objections sustained! The homosexual agenda is falling to pieces as we speak!"

  • 51. lsfoster  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:05 am

    I'm anticipating a triumphant blog post from Andy Pugno any minute now commending their legal team for their "brilliantly argued and successful objection". 😉

  • 52. Devon  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:43 am

    I know! They need to just give up on objecting because they're embarrassed.

  • 53. New  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Rob Tisinai, I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • 54. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:43 am

    WOW! – this is extremely intersting!

  • 55. Bob  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Ok, seriously? I have no idea what's happening here. Did "CD" just accuse the judge of promoting heteronormativity?

  • 56. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:51 am

    No, he's reading from the document. 🙂

  • 57. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:52 am

    I think CD was reading from an old government document that was denying tax exempt status to a charity because they condoned homosexual behavior.

  • 58. DebbieC  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:53 am

    I believe he's quoting from one of the documents.

  • 59. fsb  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:53 am

    No, I believe it's just a reading from the admitted document, that is the Treasury's statement to the pride group… I think!

  • 60. variola  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Are you confused about the last few bits of CD? Those are him reading from the US Treasury's letter to the Pride Foundation in 1974. And from other documents he's trying to get admitted into evidence.
    The liveblog is a little clearer on when he's reading from something. I'm obssesively refreshing both liveblogs b/c each has diff strengths/weaknesses and I like the confirmation of two different bloggers.

  • 61. Bob  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Today's stuff is much clearer over there. Thanks

  • 62. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:45 am

    NSFW? – I am sorry, I don't understand, can someone please clarify?

  • 63. abbe  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Not Suitable For Work!

  • 64. Patrick Regan  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Sometimes AKA: Not Safe For Work.

  • 65. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:49 am


  • 66. mfbjr  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:52 am

    CD: Communication to Pride Foundation in which US Treasury denies tax-exempt status (1974). Admissible under ancient documents exception. Shows that historical bias against homos.

    Judge Walker: You are calling this an ancient document?

    CD: Don’t shoot the messenger. Statute is 20 years.

    M: Object. Can’t prove this was in Library of Congress.

    Judge Walker: Would Library of Congress have a document such as this?

    CD: We can show that this document can be obtained from Library of Congress. Perhaps we can admit it into evidence subject to verification.

    This document seems to be from the Frank Kameny papers at the Library of Congress ( – really interesting collection.

  • 67. Dieter M.  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:53 am

    Why is THIS not a national tv commercial?

    It should be

  • 68. Kim  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Shameless plug:

    Enjoy. It is along the same line as Rob Tisinai video

  • 69. Rob  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:00 am

    The producers at MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" should take notice of this outstanding presentation and have Rob Tisinai on as a guest presented of facts!

  • 70. Gery  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Appreciate the vid. Posted to my facebook account.

    Here's hoping the re-enactment goes viral when released.

  • 71. Dieter M.  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Have already received over 10,000 views on youtube for just the Trailer for the re-enactment.
    After providing them with access to the full transcripts. The re-enactments are being re-filmed to show a more accurate display of actual proceedings. first video should be up shortly.
    very time consuming.

  • 72. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Found it. I am pretty sure that the Greek text won't come out properly, but bear with me anyway. It's worth reading.

    I have a friend who is a classical archaeologist, G. This is what comes of traveling in anthropological circles; you find people who can actually *read* Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek. This is what my friend G. wrote about Leviticus … and the fundies can put it in their proverbial pipes, just like I said …


    Let me briefly point out that there is no word in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek for homosexual or homosexuality (the OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the NT in koine Greek). The ancient Jews and Greeks had conceptions of gender and sexual acts, but not what modern psychology calls sexual orientation. The word homosexual in English was not coined until the end of the 19th century and the notion of sexual orientation is largely a 20th century psychoanalytic construct. The word "homosexual" was first used in an English translation of the Bible, the Revised Standard Version, in 1948 (the passage was 1st Corinthians 6:9). If Greek and Hebrew had no words for homosexual, and the English word was not introduced into the text of the Bible until 1948, I think that some revision of thought is in order.

    Let's review the texts about which you ask. Here is a transliterated text of the Hebrew into English characters:

    The Hebrew texts read: Leviticus 18:22 v't-zkr l' tskb mskby 'sh tvjbh hv'.
    Leviticus 20:13 v'ys 'sr yskb 't-zkr mskby 'sh tvjbh jsv snyhm mvt yvmtv dmyhm bm.

    In the 3rd century BC, the Greek Ptolemy's in Alexandria Egypt commissioned a Greek translation of OT from Hebrew into Greek. Some 72 Greek speaking Jewish scholars are said to have collaborated on it; it is consequently called the Septuagint ("Seventy"). It was widely used throughout the Mediterranean since Greek was the international language of the time. The Greek texts from the Septuagint read: Leviticus18:22 kai meta arsenoV ou koimhqhsh koithn gunaikoV bdelugma gar estin
    Leviticus 20:13 kai oV an koimhqh meta arsenoV koithn gunaikoV bdelugma epoihsan amfoteroi qanatousqwsan enocoi eisin

    The King James Bible was a translation of the entire Bible into English in 1611. The translators made use of many earlier translations of the Bible including the Latin Vulgate Bible used by the Catholioc Church. The texts in thge KJV read: LEV 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    LEV 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    These two passages are badly misunderstood, particularly because of the inaccurate and inexact use of "abomination" in English to translate a much more particular word in the original Hebrew. Both say essentially the same thing in Hebrew and Greek (the Septuagint). The verb and the direct object are cognates (a so-called cognate accusative). The root for both the verb and the object can mean several different things. The verb has possible meanings of "going to sleep, going to bed, having sex." The object of the verb means "sleep, bed, sex" To translate literally one has several alternatives: "Do not sleep the sleep; do not lay the laying; do not engage in sex with the sexuality," etc. The object is then modified by a word meaning "of a woman, female, feminine." One ends up with the difficult phrase "Do not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man, do not lay the laying of a woman with a man, etc." Jewish moralists for over a millennium have debated exactly constitutes "the sleep of a woman" and who is technically a "man" in the situation.

    No one in the time of Moses or Christ ever used the word "abomination." It is a modern English word and English as we know it did not exist in Biblical times. "Abomination" is correct only in the Elizabethan sense of the word which is borrowed from Latin "abominatio." The root is omin- which means "omen." The prefix "ab" means away. Thus the word means to turn away from something because it is ill omened or portentous. But what about the original text in Hebrew?

    Various things in Leviticus are called an "abomination." Some are what we would consider moral issues (incest), but others are manifestly about health and hygiene (avoiding pork, shell fish, brackish water). Some are matters of cleanliness (touching dead snakes, sleeping with a woman during menstruation). Others still are issues of ethnicity and religious identity (cutting of hair and beard, etc.). The word "abomination" translates the Hebrew word "toevah" which really means something like "impure or unclean for the purposes of ritual" (i.e. something that could unfavorably affect sacrifices, auspices, etc.). It is not a blanket denunciation of all homosexuals any more than it is a denunciation of all women by saying that they are also considered "toevah" during menstruation. This is further underscored by one of the oldest most authoritative translations of the Old Testament–the Septuagint. Beginning in the 3rd century BCE Greek speaking Jewish scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek. The Greek language distinguishes between violations of morality and justice (anomia) and infringements of ritual purity (bdelugma). In Leviticus 18:22, the activity is called a bdelugma making it an issue of ritual purity rather than one of general morality. The word "toevah" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occur as part of the stock phrase "toevah ha-goyim,""the uncleanness of the Gentiles" (2 Kings 16:3). It is often used in condemnations of temple prostitution (1 Kings 14:24–"sodomite" in the KJV is a mistranslation for the Hebrew "kadash" or temple prostitute). Often it simply means idol. The severity of the punishment (death), then, would seem to arise from the association of the act with idolatry and paganism. The law is one that preserves the ethnic and religious identity of the Jews and is backed by the first few exhortations of the Ten Commandments.

    Since there is no biblical word for homosexual, the passages in Leviticus are problematic but refer to ritual purity as opposed to universal morality, there is no intrensic contradiction between being gay and a Christian.

    P.S. The books of the Bible were not collected into one literary compendium until the 4th century CE at the Council of Nicea. The word Bible comes from Greek biblia meaning books (in the plural). The books were codified by a vote of the committee, and what books were to be include were a matter of dispute by different nominaltions into the 18th century. The Roman emperor Constantine employed St. Jerome to translate the collected books into Latin. The original language texts are nonetheless still available. You can see them online at the following sites:

  • 73. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Thank you for clearing up the confusion – this is particularly enlightening, since these are the same texts that many Christians use to demonize us!

  • 74. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:28 am

    You're welcome. 🙂


  • 75. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Yes, David, and the same ones who seek to use the Bible to condemn us also conveiently rework David's love for Jonathan into something other than what it really was, even to misinterpreting the meaning of the many psalms David wrote about Jonathan, one of which states that Jonathan's love was greater than a woman's. The evidence is there, but they refuse to acknowledge the truth of what they are seeing, and reinterpret it to fit their own dogma.

  • 76. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:31 am

    These two passages are badly misunderstood, particularly because of the inaccurate and inexact use of “abomination” in English to translate a much more particular word in the original Hebrew.

    I've heard this hair-splitting over the definition of "abomination" before, but uh… remind me what Leviticus says is the penalty for lying with man as one would with a woman? That to me speaks louder than the word choice…

  • 77. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:46 am

    It is not a blanket denunciation of all homosexuals any more than it is a denunciation of all women by saying that they are also considered “toevah” during menstruation.

    I dunno about you, but saying that menstruating women are so unclean that you can't even sit on a chair that one has sat on kind of sounds to me like a "blank denunciation of all [menstruating] women." I really don't see any non-misogynistic reading of the views of Leviticus in regards to menstruation.

  • 78. Patrick Regan  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Not only that, but in the context of the times, the words "unclean" usually meant "abomination" as we know it now. Just like the "Love thy neighbor…" should actually be thought of as "Love thy fellow Jew…" <-citation on the "love thy neighbor" part.


  • 79. Ozymandias  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Fiona, let me take this moment to declare my undying love for you! <3 This is an excellent analysis of the problematic nature of using Leviticus as a bludgeon against us LGBT folk.

    That Leviticus is used so often against us brings up the applicability of scripture (for lack of a better term)… A common rebuttal to using Leviticus to condemn Gays is 'Why then aren't other Levitical laws used today?' I mean seriously, Leviticus is full of laws and commandments that are in no way used nowadays… so why Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?

    It's no exaggeration when we point out that scripture was used to support slavery in America (just read the history of the Southern Baptists' formation) and the subjugation of women – just like with Gays, there are both Old and New Testament verses that can be spun into support for these two ideas which are now widely condemned in America.



  • 80. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:09 am

  • 81. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:13 am

    this site gives detailed analysis of all passages in the Bible that are supposedly against gays.
    and it goes along with all that has been said before 🙂
    (and I think I posted it abour five times already)

  • 82. David A  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:43 am

    The one that really bothers me is the less oft quoted Romans 1.26-2:
    "the males, forsaking the natural intercourse with the female, were inflamed with desire for each other, males for males, acting shamefully and receiving the retribution due them for their misguided ways…those who do such things deserve death…"
    It goes on to list many equivalent evils that God puts in man's heart to punish him. Of course, the theme of Romans is sins are broken with the heart and deserve forgiveness. But strangely he singles out homosexuality.

    It seems to me the best way to deal with this is to declare it non-cannon, as the NT was put together by Romans after the fact. But so much in the letter to the romans directly contradicts that statement that it really just leaves me baffled. Does anyone have an article to defend this letter? I'm very curious.

    (The source for the quote is the Richmond Lattimore translation, a very respectable modern translator)

  • 83. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:11 am

    There is nothing to defend in re: Paul's letter to the Romans, frankly. Paul was preaching his own agenda, and he had big ol' issues with the Greeks.

    Quote: Paul also had to deal with cultural practices among the Greeks and Romans who were forming Christian communities. It is clear that he felt that many of these practices were not only antithetical to Jewish law, but to what he considered the spirit of Christianity as well. So while Paul was magnificently tolerant of Greek practices of eating or circumcision, he did not tolerate other aspects, such as homosexuality. In pursuit of this, he took a contradictory course to his universal stance and declared salvation off-limits to an entire set of people engaged in certain behaviors. In social and political terms, his list of excluded peoples would reverberate throughout Christian history in social tensions and, in some cases, violent oppression of excluded groups.

    The bulk of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are eschatological; he is largely concerned with individuals preparing for the end of the world. While Paul, like Jesus of Nazareth, seemed to believe that the end of the world would happen within the generation of his listeners, he nevertheless downplayed the eschatological aspects of the religion, preferring instead to focus on the personal salvation aspects of the teachings. It is Paul who is largely responsible for the individualistic and personal focus of Christianity.

    While the career of Jesus of Nazareth strongly focusses on women and the social status of women, Paul was reactionary against both Jesus's radicalism towards women and the Greek liberality that allowed women a stronger voice in the community than was allowed among the Jews. He demanded that women be silent in church and in matters of theology, thus re-establishing a gendered difference that, it seems, Jesus had in part erased. At the same time, however, there are clearly women serving in the roles of priests and he speaks them.

  • 84. Dave T  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Thank you for your detailed explanation of this.

    I've often wondered why Christians place any stock at all in that book, given that it's been translated numerous times. It seems pretty obvious to me that translation must have introduced errors, unless you want to claim that god was looking over the shoulder of every translator, making sure he got it right.

    Of course, knowing that it was assembled by a committee should be proof enough that it was not divinely inspired…

  • 85. Roger  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Actually, there's no theological reason why God can't inspire a committee as well as an individual author — but granting that He does so in order to ensure that His thoughts are correctly recorded the first time, the often wildly divergent renderings of the same passages are a fair indication that He doesn't assist translators.

    (Islam is unbending in this matter — NO translation of the Koran can be accepted as the authentic word of God, only the Arabic original. Translations — even into modern Arabic — may at best serve merely as rough guides.

    The discussion reminds me of two things —

    The Italian proverb Tradurre e tradire, translation is treason;

    And the words attributed to the American legislator who objected to a proposal to introduce the study of foreign languages into his State's schools. "if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it's g*dd*mn well good enough for my kids."

  • 86. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Thank you, Fiona! I have enjoyed your posts on here, and have learned so much from you. I truly hope that we get to meet in the real world.

  • 87. Roger  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Fiona, a wonderful post. I've saved it!

    I'm not questioning your expertise or that of your friend G. ; but I have always understood that the standard Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, was commisioned from St Jerome by Pope (St) Damasus i in 382, by which time the Emperor Constantine had been dead for some 45 years.

    I know that it wasn't the first attempt to translate the Bible into Latin, and that Jerome made use of older Latin versions. Maybe they are where Constantine comes in?

  • 88. Lincoln  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:22 am

    I continue to follow this daily, and have great hopes for the outcome. I'll admit that a lot of the legalese I don't understand, but really, everything seems so helpful and damning. I don't know. I just know that as I live in MI, where some of my friends can't get married, I'm extremely interested in this case.

    That biblical translation is interesting as well.

  • 89. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:31 am

    hank you, thank you, thank you!

  • 90. ron1008  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:41 am

    That was deep. The Bible sure is clear.

  • 91. Alan E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Where is the latest update? It's been a while since the break ended. I am spending more time refreshing my pages than actually reading them.

  • 92. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Yes. I read on two other news sites, the plaintiffs have rested their case.

  • 93. robert wright 1 of 1  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:59 am

    could you let us in on what those sites are? It's been an hour since they were supposed to start back up. I'd like to know whats going on.

  • 94. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:04 am

    you can see some twitter feed. not much has been going on.

  • 95. Bob  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:52 am

    AFD Media is tweeting that the prosecution has rested and Prof. Kenneth Miller, Harvard lawyer + pol sci prof at Claremont McKenna has taken the stand. No updates here or at FDL though

  • 96. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Must be bugs in their connection….

  • 97. ron1008  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Like getting info out of North Korea

  • 98. DonG  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:05 am

    You can keep up to date on :
    It's a tweet, but it's up to date.

  • 99. Karin  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Thanks Don. I tried it, but I'm not a fan of the Twitter format for these court proceedings. I guess I'll have to wait impatiently until FDL or CC catch up.

    Hum da dum…

  • 100. robert wright 1 of 1  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Why do some people have no reply button to their name? I wanted to reply to barb that the No side rested over an hour ago, and that the Yes side has been going for that long, so obviously something IS going on. Why hasn't either of the sites made any mention of the issue?

  • 101. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:10 am

    If the nesting of the thread gets too deep, you cannot reply to that message (in order to keep the nesting under control). If you scroll back up to the first name prior that has "Reply", then it will appear immediately below the one you want to reply to, though.

  • 102. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Wow, never mind, there was A WHOLE lotta time gone by.

    Time flies reading all this 🙂

  • 103. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:11 am

    Hi Robert, it's because it only allows each reply thread to go three deep. So to reply to me, you would reply to your post right above mine.

    I know we are missing timing here…I just meant since not much time has passed since plaintiffs rested.

  • 104. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:12 am

    BTW, every time I see your name I think of the author of The Evolution of God. heh…. I'm not a fan personally, so I keep wanting to reply with, "Hey, what you wrote doesn't make any sense!" hahahaha, sorry…

  • 105. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:33 am

    It is a relatively new last name. I changed it after I got married to my husband in California. It makes life easier when your last names match. I should say I am not that Robert Wright.

  • 106. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:13 am

    I asked the same Q. about the reply button….if there is no reply button just go the next one above who/what you are replying to but make sure to point out who you are replying to.

    such as "@Ronnie" or "to Ronnie"

  • 107. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:10 am

    I think the defense should hire the woman who plays Sunny's lawyer on General Hospital…..she might do a better job!

    But wait even her character is for Marriage Equality!


  • 108. David from Sandy UT  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:30 am

    First witness just proves that voters responded to the fear-mongering lies of hate-spewing religionists instead of listening to their elected leaders. This isn’t about political power, it’s about voter stooopidity. Oh wait, it IS about political power and that fact that GLBTQ have none in spite of friends in positions of leadership.

  • 109. Callie  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:46 am

    At one time I put on my FB page that there are 4 types of voters in these situations: the haters, the activists, the apathetic, and the ignorant. Unfortunately, the haters have three of the four categories in their corner.

  • 110. Devon  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:31 am

    "T: We are doing what they did with Badgett. If necessary, we can go to binders. We are making excellent progress.

    J: I would not want to interfere with your progress. You may proceed."

    Haha! We can't have last Friday now can we.

  • 111. Alkanshel  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:32 am

    I'm a little worried about the tack they're taking, though.

    Also, I feel like if you're always getting < 50% of the vote, you really don't have political power. I mean, you have a vocal minority, but not, well, the power to actually ENACT anything…which completely negates the whole 'power' aspect.

  • 112. Alkanshel  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:36 am

    …Of course, I'm no lawyer, so the legal intricacies are not known to me.

  • 113. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:37 am

    well, they could point to the California Legislature which has TWICE passed marriage Equality Law, but vetoed by Arnie. And The fact that there are some powerful players in politics, like Leno, Migden, Acthenberg, etc. in the present and past political makeup. I mean they could even take it back to Harvey Milk and the Briggs initiative, and how the queers beat poor old Anita Bryant…

  • 114. Lisa  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:58 am

    I think Mr. Segura on our side established pretty well that LGBT really don't have political power, something with unreliable allies.

  • 115. Alan E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:35 am

    Where is the DOJ brief that was released last year that essentially equates gays to pedophiles? Obvious Federal level stigmatization.

  • 116. Alkanshel  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Or, better yet, the Pentagon's plan for building a bomb that turns enemy soldiers into homosexuals.

    Admittedly, that's rather dated, but it shows a pretty clear pattern.

  • 117. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:39 am

    Where do I sign up!!!

  • 118. Alkanshel  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Ah yes, here we go:

  • 119. Rightthingtodo TX  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:46 am

    dude…effing brilliant

    made me cry

  • 120. Regan DuCasse  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:48 am

    I hope it's being pointed out that political VISIBILITY is very different from political POWER.

    As a minority, with opponents TRAINED to fear, distrust and maintain gay people in a perpetual caste system that puts many at risk, it would be obvious that in the last three decades, gay people have become more open and visible with a great deal of resistance to just that along the way.

    If there were significant political power, which still doesn't justify determined discrimination, we wouldn't be in court every month defending things straight people never have to.

    We wouldn't be having this conversation.
    The census didn't even want to have an accurate accounting and that's still something that's elusive because so many people can't or won't come out as gay.

    So if a gay person remains closeted for ANY reason, that alone speaks to a dearth of socio/political power, even as more and more gay people ARE out.

    And the more that do, more laws, more challenges exponentially come up as well.
    Which firmly seems to negate or render rather worthless any serious protections.

    Like the difference between being married, and civilly unioned.

  • 121. Steve Mathias  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Hey Regan, glad to see you're following this too, not that I'm surprised.

  • 122. Dieter M.  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Off topic, but wait until all those muslim people who are told if they kill gays they will recieve 76 virgins in heaven,
    find out that the virgins are gay men…LOL


  • 123. Flewellyn  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:09 am

    That's rather racist. Why would you say something like that?

  • 124. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:27 am

    You could say anti religious bigotry, but racist, by what standard is a joke about religion and homosexuality racist? Neither group that Dieter mentioned is a racial ethnicity. Muslim is a religious group, not a race.

  • 125. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:27 am

    I agree w/ Flewellyn. Totally unnecessary.

  • 126. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:33 am

    I agree too, but it is not racist.

  • 127. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Oh, Dieter, that is just too RICH! Oh, I love it! You go, guy!

  • 128. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:53 am

    I understand that the Defense is trying to show that LGBTs have political power and therefore don't need the intervention of the courts (just as last week they were trying to blur definitions to show that we can't be defined as a suspect class). But … how much power do we actually need?

    Following the Civil War, the U.S. enacted three Constitutional Amendments supporting the rights of African Americans. (We've spent so much energy trying to block on hostile one; can't imagine trying to enact a positive one.) The first African American elected to the US House of Representatives was in 1869, a few short years after the Civil War. The first African American appointed to the US Senate was also in 1869 … and to Confederate President Jefferson Davis' seat, no less. In some cities and congressional districts, African Americans represent a clear majority of the voters.

    And yet, no one would dispute that African Americans have nevertheless continued to face discrimination and were worthy of the court-imposed protections of a suspect class.

    So really, how much political power is needed to actually demonstrate that a suspect classification isn't necessary? I think the Plaintiffs have done a good job in showing that while the LGBT community has strong allies who pay lip service to us, those allies do not carry through with their support, nor fear retaliation from us for failing to do so.

  • 129. truthspew  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:00 am

    I'm hoping our team says to Miller at the end of his testimony "So, if glbt people have all this power, how come they lost on the Prop 8 battle?"

    I'd love to see him answer that one.

  • 130. gus  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:01 am

    The unions leaders cannot threaten and demand a member vote this way or that, otherwise there would not have been union members who voted for Reagan. But the leaders of a church can threaten parishioners with eternal damnation. Not quite the same power.

  • 131. Flewellyn  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Hi, been reading since the beginning, first time commenting.

    It seems to me that Professor Miller, for a political scientist, has a very poor understanding of political power. Either that, or he's being disingenuous.

    Power, in political science, is simply defined as the ability to get other people to do what you want, whether by legal authority, reasoned argument, moral suasion, wealth, numbers, what have you. It's simply the ability to get things done the way you want them done.

    How much power do LGBT people have? The clearest sign of how much, or how little, they have on a national scale, is this: every single time same-sex marriage has come to a statewide vote, LGBT people have lost. Every. Single. Time.

    Since this is clearly not what LGBT people and their allies (like us here!) want, clearly, we do not have the power to get what we want, marriage equality, by means of popular vote and organizing. The only recourse is to the power of rational and moral suasion to the judiciary.

  • 132. Callie  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:08 am

    True, Gus. They can also threaten with being blackballed by their own church. Ostracism has a powerful affect in the church community especially when it's all you've known and your main source of familial connection and socialization.

    I swear that's what's happened to my neighbors. Their family has been members of the same Church of Christ as long as they can remember, and they're very nice and supportive of us. Even the husband, who is an HVAC repair guy, let us know our A/C was frozen up once. Yet they put up a sign in their yard supporting our state amendment. That hurt like hell to see but it wasn't surprising. Having grown up in a church myself, I know how easy it is to be intimidated by the church leaders.

  • 133. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:17 am

    What I find interesting is the statement made regarding his qualifications "Also address gays and lesbians in politics, as well as coalitions that affect two parties, particularly role of gays and lesbians as key part of Dems coalition". The key word in this is "Dems coalition" – it still does not speak singularly of our political power.

  • 134. Paula  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:17 am

    I hope Mr. Boies' actual question to Miller was whether knew who Elaine Noble was, not Elaine Goldman. Point made, though. (1st LGBT politico out at time of first election to state-level seat.)

  • 135. Pearl  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Boutrous: Other than this article, have you done any scientific research on the pol power of gays and lesbians?

    Miller: No but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!

  • 136. Casey  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:25 am


  • 137. Casey  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:25 am

    His reference to Obama makes little sense to me, as well, since Obama does not support marriage equality, and has effectively shrugged off his promises to us. I see that they are trying to make the point that CA is a blue state that strongly supported the President, and thus provides power to the LGBT community, but that seems rather backwards. If marriage equality can fail in the voting booth in a state as liberal as CA, doesn't that attest strongly to the lack of political power we have as a community? The defendants' team has given me cause to make my "…the hell?" face many times.

  • 138. Cindy  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:28 am

    I find it continuously amusing that the DI is trying to show that LGBT are powerful. If LGBT are so powerful, wouldn't there be full equal rights and protections (marriage, health care, hate crimes protection…)?

  • 139. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:33 am


  • 140. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:42 am

    wasn't calling for one, just noting that there was a New Thread….

  • 141. Happy  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Yes, we have the power to rally some powerful, like-minded friends to our cause, we have the power to raise vast sums of money, we have the power to persuade those who believe in our cause to stand up and say so publicly, but we do not have the power to grant mercy to a soul, or to prevent eternal damnation if that's what the church makes its followers believe will happen as a result of supporting us. That, we can't do.

    What I hate is the dichotomy of these supposedly pious souls. While they're fully assured of our place in hell, and not only refuse to support our civil (not religious) rights, but further actually condemn us, they always, ALWAYS, are guilty of some sin that would be deemed every bit as horrible as homosexuality is believed to be.

    I just don't get how they can shout about how dirty we are from the pigpen THEY're wallowing in!

  • 142. Shira  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Not to nitpick, but unless Maggie Gallagher converted, she is LDS, not Catholic.

  • 143. Robin  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:18 am

    "I wrote on Prop. 22. Showed that gays and lesbians have power."

    …How does an anti-gay ballot measure that WON show that gay people have power?

  • 144. Liveblogging Day 10: Part&hellip  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:23 am

    […] [NOTE] I’ve started a second thread over here. […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!